“The rainmaker”

GE scientist Vincent Schaefer, a machinist and high school dropout, develops cloud seeding — the process of making rain by seeding clouds in the atmosphere. The idea today helps protect Midwestern corn and wheat fields from hail damage, and helped jump start the emerging postwar field of atmospheric science”

Can be read on the homepage of General Electric

The company´s history says

Since 1946 General Electric has the capability to make rain to change the weather.

Wall Street has been closed down for today.

How bets on more catastrophes will be prevented? Profits from put and calls on brown outs or on or against nuclear energy?

Which inside jobs have been carried out in the past?

Energy is of a nation´s concern

But what if there is dissent on energy policy and investment into infrastructure?

And how long does profound change into environment and policy take? Who has which tools?

You´ve got the choice.

Really?

Honestly?

On German tv “zdf-info”

the information has been aired this early morning, that a weather event in one part of the world leads to catastrophes at another region of earth.

Flooding of Austria and Germany was caused by tropical storm.

Nobel prize winner Robert Jungk

Has written in his book „Future has already be gun“:

„Uncontrolled weather makers in Western countries/States will lead to catastrophic consequences in the East“, Bernard Vonnegut said, one of the very first inventors of „Weather modification” in a hearing by Congress. „As one is trying gigantic forces which should not have been risked without foreseeing the consequences.“

This has been in 1961. – warning of what we are seing these days.

With evacuating parts of New York.

“First we take Manhattan then we take Berlin”

is a song line as well as reality. What is happening in New York right now can happen to Berlin tomorrow. Intentionally man-made as well as man-made mishap.

Time to talk about weather modification.

With the World Meteorological Organization WMO in Geneva listing up which countries interfere with weather one can´t say it is humbug.

In 2001 I had the permit to visit US airforce bases

For filming, photographing and interviewing the experts on the issue of weather modification

Among them the doyens of Us-weather modification.

The current situation can be described by reminding to what nobel prize winner Robert Jungk found out: future has already begun. A new technology once discovered bears dangerous consequences. So when inventing something new better think twice. It can lead to devastation. It is this message Oppenheimer, Einstein and others experienced – what they found out led to devastation. So decide not to develop every technical idea. Decide not to test a theory. For the good of many.

With the catastrophe no longer deniable

It is one question how to carry on? Counteract immediately and use further weather modification in order to stop it? But risking that it will strike even more powerful the next time as the past centuries have shown:

Since Findeisen, Vonnegut, Schaefer and others invented weather modification for preventing storms and helping farmers, a lot has gone wrong. Too many have messed around with weather on a global scale without foreseeing the consequences at other places of earth or by contrast aiming for exactly this during Cold War.

NCAR in Boulder, Colorado (National Center for atmospheric Research) observes what countries in the rest of the world are doing. Among them are China, Dubai/Emirates, Thailand and Mali. http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/westafrica/

Mali? Yes, indeed the country striked by civil war exercised weather modification. Why not

So even without any bad intentions the technology can lead to catastrophes.

Let alone with mujaheddin with the license to make rain.

Whenever talking about the enormous power a technology implies, it has been used for destruction. First it was war then came Cold War – literally

(nuke them, ice them and tear them down) then it was war on terror. No wonder that some scientists claimed that weather modification did not work. They did want that their work should be used for destruction.

But: those who asked for destruction did not want to make this public either. They were fond of secrecy. And it is for this reason that for a long period of time the spiral of silence reigned over speaking out.

Time to change this.

Time for investigative journalists to take a thourough look into what has happened since 1946 in order to be able to really take the right decisions.

Whenever new technology emerges:

First ask what can happen in the worst case?

Then think of what has happened in the past.

Remind that it has always been Mr Murphy who has won the prize.

And then ask whether it is really worth it.

Or whether a huge number of people will suffer after some maybe had a slight advantage.